Oddbean

I admire the willingness to try. Personally I feel the sociopaths / psychopaths only take advantage of people and programs with your ethos but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Working towards civilized resolutions is a good goal. I do think that a sound money standard would reduce many types of petty crime and the criminal culture would be greatly disincentivized. But I do not think sound money would get rid of the rare but hyper-destructive psychopaths and sociopaths who do get pleasure from the pain and suffering of others.

To be clear, I believe justice is necessary. It clearly doesn’t work to roll over and let abusive humans perpetuate violence on defenseless humans. I think our current systems equate justice with violence. I don’t think they are the same. So we need a new paradigm for dispensing justice without perpetuating violence. Systems that more accurately reflect value (BTC) seem like a good place to start. I’ve got lots of questions and very few answers. Thanks for being willing to thoughtfully engage.

I tend to lean toward individual sovereignty as the ideal. In my view, evil occurs when I force another to comply to my will, as I have set myself up as their god, judging that they should live by my ideals. Two areas I can think of where this gets tricky are with young children who depend on others to keep them safe, and in matters of self defense. In matters between adults who are respectful of each others’ bodily autonomy I struggle to find a case where violence is justified. I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Defense can be violence. If one attempts to kill me, I will enforce my desire to remain alive through lawful application of force. My violence is justifiable…even if it results in death. But even the law recognizes such defense as violence. One must provide an affirmative defense as to why taking a life was lawful.

This one is tricky for me. I feel the tension between the physical impulse to preserve my own life with the desire to be the one that violence ends with. Not that I will end all violence, but that I will not respond to violence with violence, even if it costs me my life.

This is a complex issue: whether one has a duty to preserve life in the face of a lethal aggressor or is there something good about refraining from enforcing one’s desire to live. I see aggression as something to be resisted by all those capable. I feel defending self and others against aggression is a duty, both a moral duty and a civic duty. Our bill of rights agrees it’s a civic duty almost explicitly and implies it’s a moral one as well.